Tower Closures vs. Safety

D

danielr

Filing Flight Plan
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
23
Display Name
Display name:
DanielR
Thought this would be an interesting topic.

I have to do an individual report on a problem in my field of study before the semester ends. I chose the effects that the tower closures on airports would have on the safe operation of aircraft around those airports.

This would especially be true for the southern Connecticut towers (Bridgeport, Danbury, Groton, Hartford, New Haven, Oxford).

[side question: which list of the following two links is the most recent? I'm guessing the second one...]

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf


http://www.faa.gov/news/media/fct_closed.pdf

Anyways, I see some problems originating form the closures of the towers listed above. These airports are among the primary airports that student pilots fly to during their solo cross-country flights. Should these towers close in the near future, future student pilots might possibly have to make their cross country flights to an untowered airport.

Combine the already dangerous situations concerned with an untowered airport, and add in student pilots with not a lot of experience as to the operations conducted at these airports...

Anyone else see a problem?
 
Last edited:
No, I don't see a problem. And having flown at both towered and non-towered airports, I resent the implication that we student pilots, or any other pilot for that matter, are too stupid to fly without the guidance of someone sitting in a tower.
 
Considering the number of towered airports vs non-towered airports, the students darn well better be able to land at a non-towered airport safely as that is going to be the the vast majorities of their operations.
 
Eagle I said:
I resent the implication that we student pilots, or any other pilot for that matter, are too stupid to fly without the guidance of someone sitting in a tower.
Click to expand...

Good point.

I guess it just has to do with being extra careful, seeing as you don't even need radios, or can depart any runway you wish.
 
I think there are some airports where safety would suffer without a tower, and some where it wouldn't, with traffic levels being a major factor in that.

By the way, your second link only covers contract towers. Decisions about towers staffed by FAA personnel had not been made yet.
 
danielr said:
Good point.

I guess it just has to do with being extra careful, seeing as you don't even need radios, or can depart any runway you wish.
Click to expand...

All we have to do is create a better class of human being, and then we won't have to worry about human beings screwing up.
 
danielr said:
Good point.

I guess it just has to do with being extra careful, seeing as you don't even need radios, or can depart any runway you wish.
Click to expand...

The part about planes without radios at nontowered airports concerns me, but my impression, again having flown at both, is that you need to have constant vigilance at ALL airports whether there's a tower or not. During one of my first few lessons at KGON, I listened in disbelief as the tower cleared the plane I saw sitting at the hold-short line for takeoff, as I was on final for that runway. Fortunately both that plane and I realized the tower was in error. Controllers make errors. I think the presence of control towers can make some pilots too complacent. At any airport, effective communication is the key. It can work just as well without a tower, too.
 
jtheune said:
Considering the number of towered airports vs non-towered airports, the students darn well better be able to land at a non-towered airport safely as that is going to be the the vast majorities of their operations.
Click to expand...

Good point.
I learned to fly and got my PPL at Teterboro (kteb), which is Class-D.

Early in my training my instructor took me to several non-towered airports, and I'm glad he did.

Sussex, Greenwood lake, Aeroflex-Andover and Orange Co. airports. So after he cut me loose, I was pretty comfortable flying to and from non-towered.
 
Last edited:
I must be missing something. Students will have to do cross-countries to nontowered airports. Bravo foxtrot delta. Of three remote solo cross-country landings I did as a student pilot, two were nontowered. Neither was anywhere near unsafe. All three could have been nontowered, but I thought it might be cool to take a landing at KMER (and it was).
 
MAKG1 said:
I must be missing something. Students will have to do cross-countries to nontowered airports. Bravo foxtrot delta. Of three remote solo cross-country landings I did as a student pilot, two were nontowered. Neither was anywhere near unsafe. All three could have been nontowered, but I thought it might be cool to take a landing at KMER (and it was).
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the regulation that requires students to go to a non-towered field?
 
EdFred said:
Can you point me to the regulation that requires students to go to a non-towered field?
Click to expand...
There isn't any.

The OP said students would have to. The reason he was hinting at is all the towered airports in his part of Connecticut have their towers closing.
 
I think the problems will be more economic related than safety related. Students will delay some training. Many corporate A/C will not land at non-towered airports. Some G/A pilots will curtail certain flights, especially at busy times. If there are any crashes related to tower closings I am going to guess it will be fuel related as people run out of fuel while trying to figure out how to understand some accents I hear in the pattern around here.
 
MAKG1 said:
There isn't any.

The OP said students would have to. The reason he was hinting at is all the towered airports in his part of Connecticut have their towers closing.
Click to expand...

I read your post as a comment about regulation rather than situation.
 
I see no problems with towers closing. In fact, I welcome it.
 
MAKG1 said:
There isn't any.

The OP said students would have to. The reason he was hinting at is all the towered airports in his part of Connecticut have their towers closing.
Click to expand...
and in such a huge place as connecticut, how could one ever deal with such an issuein a vehicle that goes over 100mph in a straight line? I'd guess that enormous area ranks as one of the larger counties in a real state.
 
what i find amazing is there are 6 towered airports in connecticut. is there any room for uncontrolled airspace???
 
Most of my students solo to non-towered fields. I think 95% or more of U.S. airports are non-towered. Towers are really the exception rather than the rule.
 
tonycondon said:
what i find amazing is there are 6 towered airports in connecticut. is there any room for uncontrolled airspace???
Click to expand...

6 towered airports? Using pi X r2, that's 82.896 square miles of controlled airspace...surface to 2,500' AGL.

Yeah, I think there's room.
 
Eagle I said:
No, I don't see a problem. And having flown at both towered and non-towered airports, I resent the implication that we student pilots, or any other pilot for that matter, are too stupid to fly without the guidance of someone sitting in a tower.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that.

Out west, there's not that many towered airports to begin with. For example, in Colorado there are 73 airports but only 10 or 12 with towers.
 
In the government's own annual reports on the contract tower program they use the mantra of enhanced safety on almost every page as a raison d-etre of the program. Extensive cost-benefit analyses are conducted for each tower before they are opened. The administration's decree that any of the towers be closed without lifting a single finger to determine if the countless cost-benefit analyses used to open them in the first place should be used to close them is nothing short of Russian roulette with public safety if we are to believe any of the studies used to justify opening any of them. Should some of the towers be closed? Sure. Should some un-towered airports have new towers opened? You bet. But not by the fiat of an administration so consumed by its own hubris that it refuses to consider public safety in any dialogue, public or private, on the matter. The FAA's own auditors and the DOT Inspector General has determined again and again that the contract tower program saves taxpayer dollars and the lives of the public. It is unconscionable that the safety of the public should be held hostage by the administration to gain political advantage to advance its broader wealth redistribution agenda.
 
Alternatively, those studies were trumped up justifications for pork which, for a brief shining moment looked like it might be trimmed. But once again we see that no government expenditure ever shrinks for any reason.
DrMack said:
In the government's own annual reports on the contract tower program they use the mantra of enhanced safety on almost every page as a raison d-etre of the program. Extensive cost-benefit analyses are conducted for each tower before they are opened. The administration's decree that any of the towers be closed without lifting a single finger to determine if the countless cost-benefit analyses used to open them in the first place should be used to close them is nothing short of Russian roulette with public safety if we are to believe any of the studies used to justify opening any of them. Should some of the towers be closed? Sure. Should some un-towered airports have new towers opened? You bet. But not by the fiat of an administration so consumed by its own hubris that it refuses to consider public safety in any dialogue, public or private, on the matter. The FAA's own auditors and the DOT Inspector General has determined again and again that the contract tower program saves taxpayer dollars and the lives of the public. It is unconscionable that the safety of the public should be held hostage by the administration to gain political advantage to advance its broader wealth redistribution agenda.
Click to expand...
 
This thread seems to be a repeat of earlier threads on the subject. :rofl:
 
Palmpilot said:
This thread seems to be a repeat of earlier threads on the subject. :rofl:
Click to expand...

Yep,

I don't really like the list given to us by the sequester
I don't think that a blanket ban on closing towers is right either
I don't thing the sequester is the right reason to be closing he towers.

Many towered fields do not need a tower, many of the rest could stand to have the tower's hours reduced.

There may even be a few untowered fields that could honestly use one.

One size fits all really fits none
 
Captain said:
6 towered airports? Using pi X r2, that's 82.896 square miles of controlled airspace...surface to 2,500' AGL.

Yeah, I think there's room.
Click to expand...

Your math right?

4NM x 4NM x 3.14159 x 6 = 301NM2

Still not a lot considering CT is about 4200NM2
 
The second link is more recent; but, as Palmpilot said, it only includes contract towers. The FAA-staffed towers on the first list won't close until next year, if ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top